Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Sardar Ghayas, appellant was an Inspector in the AFU, Customs Collectorate, Quetta. It is stated that he received nine packages of mobile phones and their accessories weighing 410.5 kg from Karachi and Islamabad but did not file GD and did not recover any taxes, thereby contravening Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 for which FIR 19/2010 was registered against him. He was also accused of receiving nine more packages of M/s. MMR Trading, Quetta and clearing them clandestinely, beading duty and taxes of nine lac rupees. The last charge against him was that he did not make proper examination of mobile phones and their accessories and did not collect proper duty and taxes. The charge sheet was issued to him on 14.04.2010. Mr. Shakir Muhammad, Assistant Collector was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Authorized Officer. He submitted his report on 04.10.2010. The appellant was awarded penalty of removal from service under Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973 on 01.07.2011. His departmental appeal dated 12.10.2011 was rejected on 22.11.2011. The appeal rejection order was conveyed to him on 07.12.2011. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
3. The charges levelled against the appellant were enquired into by Mr. Shakir Muhammad, Assistant Collector who made a detailed inquiry and in his report dated 04.10.2010 recommended penalty of reduction in rank by one stage for one year. The authorized officer also recommended the same penalty. The competent authority did not accept the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and authorized officer and awarded the penalty of removal from service. A competent authority can always differ with the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and the authorized officer but for that reasons have to be recorded. In the present case, the competent authority dick not record any reason for not accepting the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and the authorized officer. Without recording reasons, he could not award major penalty of removal from service to the appellant.
4. The appellant had been appointed as Inspector. He could not be given penalty of reduction in rank as recommended by Enquiry Officer and the Authorized Officer. A direct appointee cannot be given penalty of reduction in rank in which he is appointed. We are, therefore, of the view that the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and the authorized officer was not legal.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was liable to the same penalty as had been awarded to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Jamaldini, Deputy Superintendent. The appellant was directly involved in the mischief whereas Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Jamaldini had merely a supervisory roll. The appellant, therefore, cannot claim same treatment as had been given to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Jamaldini. His argument is repelled.
6. The last argument of the appellant is that since he has been acquitted in the criminal case on the same charges, therefore, he is also entitled to exoneration in the present case. We do not find any merit in this argument. There is no nexus between the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings.'' Acquittal in criminal case shall not entitle a civil servant to exoneration of the disciplinary charges if such charges are proved in accordance With rules. In the present case all the legal and codal formalities had been observed by the department. Mr. Shakir Muhammad, Assistant Director was appointed as Enquiry Officer. A detailed inquiry was conducted by him. The appellant was served with a final show cause notice on 13,10.2010 to which he had submitted his reply on 26.10.2010. He was also heard in person on 30.11.2010 on his own request. The hearing was fixed for 23.10.2010 but it was adjourned since the appellant had stated that he shall retrieve at least one consignment which was still with the PIA but he could not do so.
7. Since the Enquiry Officer and the authorized officer had recommended lesser major penalty for the appellant, therefore, the penalty of removal could not be awarded to him by the competent authority without recording reasons. However, the penalty of reduction in rank could also be not given to him. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept the appeal and set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant. It is converted into reduction in time scale by one stage for a period of one year. The appellant is reinstated into service. He shall be entitled to back benefits.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties shall be informed.